dasharo-binaries-paths-convention.md: Add

[philipanda]

No description provided.

[pietrushnic]

this have to be directly connected with naming convention or even be part of naming convention as part of subsection, otherwise it would be quickly out of sync

[philipanda]

It would be better if it never went out of sync by being as universal as possible. That's why I've been asking about creating more variants of Dasharo with the same framework+payload. A lot of projects (I've counted 10 repositories) depend on the directory structure and updating it will soon, and would in the future, be costly.

[pietrushnic]

That's why such a scheme should be implemented programmatically (being derived from variables) instead of being hardcoded. Of course, wherever it makes sense.

[philipanda]

At the same time it should be compatile with humans too. People use dl.3mdeb.com or dlui.3mdeb.com. It should be easy to manually find what youre looking for there or just explore what's available while understanding what you're looking on

[pietrushnic]

Ok, what would be your expectation?

[miczyg1]

I am sure we will be changing these names. Putting them in the paths will make us changing the paths more often over and over again.

Yes. Exceptions appear from time to time. We are also not very strict about following our own naming rules when it comes to paths and files. E.g. MTL iGPU and dGPU was one of that cases where out of a sudden binaries changed their paths because nobody could distinguish dPGU from iGPU, despite it is unique (TNx is dGPU, TU is iGPU) - I was very dissatisfied with that. We often create mess ourselves when it comes to paths.

[philipanda]

E.g. MTL iGPU and dGPU was one of that cases where out of a sudden binaries changed their paths because nobody could distinguish dPGU from iGPU, despite it is unique (TNx is dGPU, TU is iGPU)

To help with that issue I'm suggesting here to separate every unique model into its own directory. The binaries can, and should, be the same for compatible boards, but separating the models explicitly in the directory should help with similar scenarios in the future. It should be trivial to modify all the uploading scripts to upload a single binary into multiple directories if it works for more than one device model.

[miczyg1]

It should be trivial to modify all the uploading scripts to upload a single binary into multiple directories if it works for more than one device model.

Note that we rapidly increase the amount of artifacts. Capsules, raw binaries (those x2 because of dev_signed) and fwupd cabinets, also Boot Guard... it will mean that we need extra 100MB+ space per model for identical binaries if one binary supports multiple models. It will quickly get out of hand and deplete our storage pool. Links or redirects would be much better.

[philipanda]

All our Dasharo releases as of today take ~ 20 GB
I'm not sure how dl.3mdeb.com and dlui.3mdeb.com are implemented, but if making symlinks would possible, then it sure would be good to save a couple gigabytes, why not.

[macpijan]

I think we should not optimize for size in the naming convention. If this becomes a problem, it can be resolved via other tools on higher layers.

[pietrushnic]

if connected with convention documentation this would be redundant, also we should link to versioning scheme documentation and make sure it respect rules we currently apply

[philipanda]

Linked the versioning scheme. I think ideally it shouldn't be connected with naming convention, it should be more generic and allow for the naming convention to change without affecting the directory structure

[pietrushnic]

Such a connection by linking is too weak; it would be better if this document were placed inside the convention documentation. Maybe we need @macpijan here to support or discourage such thinking.

[philipanda]

I'm interpreting the other discussions in this PR to mean that we want to make the directory structure independent of the naming convention.

Do you still hold your claim that the naming convention and directory structure documents should be merged?

[pietrushnic]

No, unless you can give me word it would not diverge.

[philipanda]

I can give you a word that it will diverge, so I think there is no point in trying to make them connected more than it is natural due to the binaries contents. A binary does not need to be released, but should still have a place in the structure.

[macpijan]

I'm interpreting the other discussions in this PR to mean that we want to make the directory structure independent of the naming convention.

Yes, I'm more in favor of having them independent and focus here in paths on the binary content, not how we sell them.